SOCIAL TRANSFORMATIONS

15

was more democratic than it was despotic. Of all the ancient democracies it was in the truest sense a rule of the people for the people and by the people.

The Long Conflict between the Hebrew Nomadic and the Canaanite Agricultural Ideals. When the Hebrews entered Palestine they found its plains and valleys occupied by the highly developed agricultural Canaanites. At first the Hebrew tribesmen settled in the uplands. There they continued to live in tents and to retain their nomadic habits. As their numbers increased they began to mingle with the Canaanites. In the city of Shechem, for example, Hebrews and Canaanites lived together, intermarried, and apparently worshipped their ancestral gods at the same temple, which was called Baal-or Elberith (Lord of the Covenant; cf. Judg. 94, 46).

The rapid increase of the Hebrews in time alarmed the Canaanites, who united under Sisera, the leader of the confederacy of cities that encircled the plains of Esdraelon, to hold them in subjection. Inspired by the prophetess Deborah and led by the warrior Barak, the Hebrew tribesmen of central Palestine rallied and defeated the Canaanites beside the river Kishon. This signal victory gave the Israelites control of central Canaan, but it did not eliminate the menace of Canaanite civilisation. A majority of the population of these central cities survived. Many of them intermarried with the Hebrews. Even such a patriotic leader as Gideon married a Canaanite wife. Gradually the Canaanites were reduced to serfdom, although in a few cities like Gibeon, Gezer, and Bethshean they constituted such an overwhelming proportion of the population that they continued in the ascendancy. Their civilisation from a material point of view was so far in advance of that of the Hebrews and so completely adapted to the needs of agricultural Canaan that the conquered race at once became the teacher of the conquerors. Having no local shrines and few religious ceremonies, the Hebrews largely adopted those of the Canaanites. As a result, from the moment that the Hebrews entered Canaan (about 1150 B.C.) until the Babylonian exile (586 B.C.) a persistent and deadly conflict raged between the

nomadic Hebrew and the agricultural Canaanite conceptions of religion and government. Not only in the cities and seats of government but in the market-places and in private homes it smouldered and at times burst into a fierce flame. Although modified in many respects, the Hebrew ideals and institutions in the end emerged victorious. What is equally significant, the Hebrews treasured them and clung to them with a tenacity which would have been impossible had they not struggled and fought for them through six stirring centuries.

No two civilisations were ever more violently antithetic than those of the Hebrews and Canaanites. The conflict centred first about their religious beliefs. The Hebrews believed in one patron God of their race; the Canaanites in many local deities. The Hebrew God was conceived of as a male Deity; the Canaanite pantheon included both male and female deities, and sex dualism was one of its fundamental tenets. The Hebrews believed that their God was a moral Deity, while the gods of Canaanite mythology were grossly immoral. The result was that, while the Hebrews maintained lofty ideals of social purity, the Canaanites regarded many acts of social immorality as marks of piety.

The Early Conflict between the Hebrew and Canaanite Theories of the State. The age-long contest between the democratic and despotic ideals of government was hotly waged in ancient Israel as early as the pioneer period of the settlement. The Hebrew theory was that the state, like the early clan or tribe, was an aggregation of individuals voluntarily associated together for the purpose of protecting the interests and furthering the welfare of all members of the social group. The rulers were the servants of the people, chosen by them to represent and lead the nation and to guard the interests of each individual citizen. As in the ancient tribe, every man had a voice in the public councils; all stood on a practical equality. The Canaanite theory was that the state is an aggregation of individuals who yield their rights to an absolute and irresponsible ruler in return for the protection which he or his ancestors were supposed to give to the social group. The ruler is the practical

CONFLICTING THEORIES OF THE STATE 17

owner of his subjects and is therefore free at will and for his own purposes to command their wealth and services.

The earliest conflict between these two opposing theories came immediately after the death of the first local Hebrew king, Gideon of Ophrah. One of his sons, Abimelech, had through his Canaanite mother inherited the ideals of that race. As recorded in Judges 9, on the death of Gideon he went to his Canaanite kinsmen at Shechem and persuaded them to support him in an attempt to establish an autocracy in place of the little Hebrew democracy which his father had founded. His first step was to slay all the members of his family who might legally dispute his claims. The popular address of the one brother who escaped clearly voices the Hebrew democratic ideals which Abimelech trampled under foot. It assumes the free choice of a ruler by the people and that his task is to serve his subjects. It also implies that even in that early age the strongest men in the community were not always responsive to the call to public service (Judg. 97b-15):

And Jotham went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim, and shouted at the top of his voice, and said to them, 'Hearken to me, you men of Shechem, that God may hearken to you. Once upon a time the trees went forth to anoint a king over them. And they said to the olive-tree, "Reign over us." But the olive-tree said to them, "Shall I leave off my fatness, with which by me gods and man are honoured, and go to hold sway over the trees?" Then the trees said to the fig-tree, "You come and reign over us." But the fig-tree said to them, "Shall I stop my sweetness, and my bountiful crop, and go to hold sway over the trees?" The trees then said to the vine, "You come and reign over us.' But the vine said to them, "Shall I leave my new wine, which gladdens gods and men, and go to hold sway over the trees?" Then all the trees said to the bramble, "You come and reign over us.' And the bramble said to the trees, "If in good faith you anoint me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon."

دو

Abimelech, indeed, proved a nettle to the people of central Palestine. For three years he ruled as a tyrant, and then the

Shechemites who had supported him rebelled and vainly tried to throw off his onerous yoke. Upon not only the men who rebelled but also upon the women as well he wreaked a bloody vengeance. When finally he was struck down by a millstone thrown by a woman, the Hebrews gave devout thanks for deliverance from the rule of this incarnation of the despotic Canaanite ideal of government.

The Ascendancy of the Canaanite Governmental Ideals under Solomon. Saul and David, the first two kings of the united Hebrew commonwealth, proved faithful to the ideals of their race. Saul preserved the democratic simplicity of a tribal sheik. He held court under the tamarisk-tree that stood in his native town of Gibeah (I Sam. 226). Faithfully he strove to serve his people and in the end gave his life in their behalf. David held the hearts of the Israelites as long as he was loyal to their democratic ideas of government. His power with them rapidly waned when, as in his treatment of Uriah, he assumed certain of the prerogatives of an Oriental despot, so that even his own tribe, Judah, was ready to depose him (II Sam. 15). In the main, however, he remained a loyal servant of the people and strove to guard the rights of all his subjects. This fact alone explains the large place that he held in the esteem of succeeding generations. His son Solomon, however, made the supreme mistake of abandoning the governmental and economic traditions of his race for those of the Canaanites. The explanation is to be found partly in the ambitious, unscrupulous character of his mother Bathsheba, whose first husband was a Hittite and who may have had foreign blood in her veins. The biblical writers also trace it to the influence of his foreign marriages (I Kgs. 111-4). The despotic Canaanite theory of government suited well his own inordinate ambition for display and magnificence. That he deliberately adopted it is shown by the ruthless way in which he removed by the sword and by banishment all of the older and more powerful officials of his realm who might oppose him, by his choice of officials who were merely his tools, by his erection of fortresses at strategic points so that he was able quickly to put down any

CANAANITE IDEALS UNDER SOLOMON

19

rebellion, by the vast sums that he spent in his palace and in the strengthening of the fortifications at Jerusalem, and by the exacting system of forced labour and taxation that he imposed upon his people. Under his reign his subjects were helpless against these royal aggressions on their liberties. Public resentment smouldered. Only once is it recorded that it burst into a flame. The insurrection was led by Jeroboam, a labour leader, who had risen from the ranks (I Kgs. 1126, 40). It was quickly suppressed, however, and Jeroboam fled to Egypt, where he remained until he was recalled to become king of Northern Israel.

Solomon's Theory of Taxation. In keeping with Israel's democratic theories of government, Gideon and Saul and David had apparently maintained their rule by voluntary gifts of the people, by the spoils won through foreign conquest, and by the tribute received from conquered peoples. These sources of revenue did not satisfy Solomon's unreasonable needs. Adopting the Canaanite and Egyptian theory that the land and people belong to the king, he proceeded to introduce the forms of taxation in force in those despotic states. His first step was to impose forced labour on the non-Hebrew population (I Kgs. 915, 20, 21):

This is the way it was with the levy which King Solomon raised: all the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the Israelites, their children who were left after them in the land, whom the Israelites were not able utterly to destroy, of them did Solomon raise a forced levy of bondmen, even to this day.

Furthermore, he did not hesitate to impose the same burden upon the native Israelites (I Kgs. 513-16).

In the warning which the later prophetic writers dramatically placed in the mouth of Samuel there is a vivid portrayal of the evils of Solomon's political and economic policy and of how it affected his subjects (I Sam. 811-17):

This will be the prerogative of the king who shall reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them for himself over his